20 June 2006 3:17 PM

Preaching or social responsibility? Why governments are allowed to tell us to do some things, but not others.

Read Peter Hitchens only in The Mail on Sunday

Suggest, as I sometimes do, that it is a bad idea to undermine marriage through the tax and benefits system, and you will only have to wait about 45 seconds before someone accuses you of 'moral preaching'. Within ten minutes you will have been sprayed with accusations that you are 'making war on single mothers'. Argue that schools really have no business demonstrating the use of condoms to the young, and once again you will be denounced as a would-be televangelist, suspect and disreputable, with no business in our value-free national debate.

In fact. almost every conservative position is dismissed in this way. Anyone who tries to express it is portrayed as if he imagines he is holier than others, and hustled off the stage to hoots of mockery - many of them coming from what ought to be his own side.

What is far, far worse is that so many people so easily fall for this. Liberals, as it happens, preach constantly. What is sex education, but preaching for a removal of Christian moral restraints? What is modern 'drug education' but the same? What is the growing cross-party support for state-subsidised baby-farms but an attempt to compel women to prefer wageslavery to motherhood?

These views, given huge amounts of official support, money and standing, are not neutral. Sex-ed programmes implicitly deny that the young have any choice about how they behave. By not mentioning marriage in sex-ed classes ( allegedly so as not to offend the children of the unmarried) they spread the message that sex outside marriage is normal and usual. There is no need actually to denounce the married state. All you need to do is to sideline it, to assume that it is not necessary or important, and you have achieved the same end. Readily-available abortion, the distribution of contraceptives to girls without their parents' knowledge, and hand-outs of morning after pills reinforce the message. The state has taken over from parent as the judge of how children should behave. The main purpose of sex is pleasure.

In 'harm-reduction' drug programmes, the same effect is achieved. Advice is given on how to take drugs 'safely', which is of course impossible. The many individuals who will be irrevocably damaged by these substances do not know that this is their fate until it is too late. The idea that taking drugs is wrong in itself is never addressed. And, once again, by ignoring the possibility of moral self-restraint, the authors of these programmes destroy the very idea. There's no need to put out propaganda saying "take drugs " - the rock music industry does that quite effectively already. By acting as if such a choice doesn't exist, you remove it from the range of options and effectively abolish it.

Perhaps worst of all, the tax-breaks and general state support for 'child care' is a specific and targeted attempt by the state to enforce its preference - that women put their children second and the economy first.

These are all covert moral preaching, if you like, unwilling to declare openly what they are trying to achieve because official morality still disapproves of such ideas and they cannot - yet - be openly stated. Yet they are highly effective and have done a huge amount to change the moral behaviour of young Britons over the past 40 years.

Then there is the open moral preaching of the state, involving campaigns plainly based on the idea that persuasion - sometimes backed by punishment - can be effective in altering opinion , and that it is worth spending money and effort on it.

Why are some things chosen, and some not? It is hard to puzzle it out. Drunken driving, for instance, is a grave menace. It has been discouraged for decades by powerful propaganda campaigns and by severe prosecution of offenders, backed up until quite recently by a highly-visible police presence. The same could be said for the equally rational effort to persuade car drivers and passengers to wear seat belts. Even buying a TV licence, portrayed as a kind of civic duty, is thought important enough to warrant the buying of fleets of detector vans, supported by costly advertising campaigns and frequent prosecutions.

If it works for these causes - and it generally does - then why has it not been used to stop the use of dangerous drugs? Drugtaking causes as much misery as drunken driving, in its own slow way, and what's more I suspect that, once reliable instruments are found to check the state of drivers at crash-scenes, we will find out that many road accidents in modern Britain are caused by dope smokers and cocaine snorters. Nobody produces work sheets on how to drink and drive safely.

Then there's smoking, a nasty, evil-smelling and unhealthy habit which brings misery to many of those who do it. Quite reasonable, a lot of effort goes into persuading people to stop doing it. The idea that there might be such a thing as 'safe' or 'safer' smoking is heresy.

Yet other causes, which might also increase the sum of health and happiness, don't get this sort of uncompromising support. Why not? Given that all the social evidence shows that children from stable homes with two parents are more likely to do well at school, more likely to do productive work when they grow up, less likely to take to crime than those who come from fractured and fatherless homes, why doesn't the state use the sort of efforts it uses to curb smoking, to encourage marriage?

In logic, all these things are a mystery. If those who are in charge of us were consistent, or even honest, then they would see that these contradictory polices were a nonsense. But they don't, because they don't want to know. To think seriously about modern Britain is to realise that liberal solutions have failed, not just by the standards of people such as me, but on their own terms. We should have got to utopia long ago, if these ideas worked. But they don't , and they never will, which is why some of us will continue to preach against them from our pulpits, no matter how much slime we are pelted with.

Share this article:

Comments

You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

It has emerged that in a past labour administration,there was a strong possibility of a COUP.
"Tone" being very nervously aware of the threat of a repeat of this ,makes sure that every possible service man is out of the country.
If it wasn't Iraq or Afghanistan he would have dreamt up somewhere else.

Dear Peter, I believe there is an answer to all the problems, crime and injustice. Have you ever read of the 1904 Welsh Revival? In
the town where I grew up this was experienced. Can you imagine-no drunkenness, no pubs open, not because of a lack of beer, but because people had found something better, no swearing, doors were left open as no one was afraid of theft, there was an atmosphere of love and peace in the community we do not need a new religion, we just need to get back to original bible based Christianity, what this country's laws were based on. A day of pray and fasting would be a good start. King George XI called for a day of prayer during the war, God answered, now we are a nation who are too knowledgeable and too proud to do this, but I would argue it is the only answer!

The thing that perplexes me about the 'bright young things' and others who take cocaine and other drugs to inject into themselves, stuff up their noses or otherwise ingest is that they do not have the faintest idea of the origin of the substances. There is no quality control, for all they know they could be smoking horse manure or injecting rat poison into their bodies. The cannabis and heroin etc. that they are happily abusing their bodies with has undoubtedly been adulterated with other substances to increase weight and thereby profit for the pushers. If a hawker on the street corner was selling half price asprins he would have no takers as people would be concerned over the source. Similarly cut price home made ale. But sticking a needle into yourself full of some substance recently purchased from a "Yardie" drug pusher is done without a moments thought. Educated idiots snort white powder up their noses which might be pure cocaine but on the other hand could just as well have been mixed with ground mothballs or worse. Why would any intelligent person do it?

You say that "in logic, all these things are a mystery" but in fact these ideas are not contradictory at all. They have one thing in common, which is that they are all designed to help bring down Western civilisation. For instance, the promotion of condoms and abortion reduces our birth rate to levels at which white people are no longer replacing themselves; undermining marriage and promoting drugs destroys the foundations of our society; the persecution of drunk drivers gives the police the right to bully the middle classes (95% of those breathalysed are innocent!); stigmatising smoking removes people's personal responsibility for their own actions. I could go on and on but you get the point. The question is why would people sign up to these self-destructive ideas. The answer is that a series of beliefs have been planted in our society by a small group of people who instinctively hate us, ideas like Marxism, feminism, multiculturalism, in fact the whole range of political correctness. These ideas were founded on an instinctive hatred of Western Christian people and have been so successfully planted in our brains that we are killing ourselves. Peter, until you face up to this you will sound to most people like a retired major sounding off in a Surrey pub about how the world's going to pot but with no coherent idea of why this is happening.

Peter - too right. I find it easy to glean from the selective moralities and "values" of the liberals that the only thing they are interested in (and have ever been interested in) is the self, and the self alone. For a long time I held the view that the Western world was designed for the betterment of the individual at the expense of the decline of the masses. By this I mean that everyone enjoys things on a personal level, but that on a collective level, things suffer. However, and having read your article just now, I have finally decided that it works for neither the individual nor the crowd, for the two go hand in hand and are inextricably intertwined. And I also perceive happiness to be at the nub of what you write about, because your would-be solutions to the problems we encounter on a daily basis would serve ultimately to enhance the moods and spirits of all concerned, as they derive from that source of magic known as Christianity. I'd be much happier (and was much happier) to be poor and surrounded by fellow poor, but happy people, than be affluent (as I am) and surrounded by harsh, affluent and generally miserable people. Christianity wasn't (or isn't) just about holding communities together and ensuring the course of reproduction, but also about giving comfort and structure to the life of the individual. I often think of how lonely it must be for people who during their education were given no spiritual basis in their lives from which to build; and in these godless times, expect the numbers suffering from this lack of spiritual nourishment during what should be a magical and innocent time - childhood - to increase. It is the attitude of the average liberal dullard that irritates most of all. As you pointed out, one would be laughed off the stage for expressing the views you express in front of certain people. And yet so many people share your views. I once asked a friend to turn off a film ("Natural Born Killers") because it was beginning to get to me in a big way - a glut of crude sex, violence and other such rubbish. I stated my reason as being "the film goes against my religion - Catholicism". He laughed at me and continued to watch it, so I left. Now I realise that if, say, a Muslim or a Buddhist were to raise the same objection if he/she was in the company of a Western friend, there would be no arguments or laughter whatsoever - but why should a Catholic/Protestant be any different? If I tried to question the ethics of a single mother, I'd be dubbed "judgemental". Liberals really can be the epitome of the attributes they (allegedly) constantly attack in their droning voices - intolerant, bigotted, selfish, and discriminatory.

It is a fantasy to believe that the social cohesion lost over the last forty years can be restored by any other means than the creation and broad acceptance of a new religion - probably worldwide - and a social order based upon that religion.

Mr. Edward Gibbon theorized that a multicultural global civilization (like Rome) could persist indefinitely with a little democracy, but he was living in an age of cohesion, when the Judeo-Christian social order was still intact. His theory does not account for the spiritual void at the heart of multicultural epochs.

People are fickle things. In periods of cohesion they long for personal liberty. Some are persecuted even executed for that longing, others live in exile, establish colonies for dissident communities in far flung lands.

Contrary to the speculation (and wishes) of paleos and certain leftists, the age of worldwide American civilization (call it Empire if you like) is just beginning. This is more like the first century CE than the fourth or fifth.

Representative government *will* become universal (at least at the local and national level; the defining feature of empire is the constraint it places on the foreign policies of peoples under its umbrella), as will open markets, and multiculturalism. Per always, the question is who benefits, who loses, what are the effects, and side effects?

The new apostles of empire - conservatives and liberals alike - don't like to talk about the dark, ugly underbelly of the emerging world order: the breakdown of social cohesion and family structures, the replacement of culture by the police and prison state as the primary arbiter of good behavior. As European societies become more diverse, they will not only forego their generous entitlements to some extent, but see rising crime, and cynicism. They will embrace the same kind of draconian criminal justice policies general in America.

And culture will suffer. The British Empire was never quite genuinely multicultural; the American Empire is. And as with Rome, the quality if not quantity of culture will decline. Reality television and video games are the new Colisseum. Creativity, like compassion, is a republican virtue.

I agree with almost everything Peter has to say (except maybe his ideas on trains and public transport) but would a party that espoused similar views ever win office? I suspect the answer is a flat NO! Elsewhere on this Blog a contributer pointed out that all great civilisations eventually fall. The Western World is no exception to this rule which is proven by the descent into decadence since the middle of the 20th century.

There are simply too many vested interests opposing true conservatism. Will the enormous army of single mothers vote to lose benefits? Will the criminal fraternity vote for stiffer punishments? Will public sector workers vote for a party that would abolish many of their jobs and make the rest work harder and more productively? Will drug users vote for a party that would re crimminalise their selfish pleasure and hand out stiff penalties rather than wisy washy detox programs and community service orders?

Peter is right about almost everything but before we see a return to the values he (and most of us contributing to his blog) hold true, I reckon we'll need to see the Western World collapse first.

What ever happened to the up and coming lady of the house whose breeding was engrained by the clarion: “I’ll hatch the live eggs dear – you come back the golden ones”. Well the boys still do have to come up with the readies no matter how suicidal they become on the news their last nights stand, lover, partner, or wife breaks the news she is pregnant and is quite rightly demanding what he is going to do about it. Not the most romantic of marriage proposals but it might be worth a “chuck” as he and her never know they might be just the “ ‘chick’ or ‘rooster’ ” for each other and if already married it is hardly a good reason to be getting divorced either.

Alternatively of course you could have both kept your “Kex” on and bested your urges to engage in mutually rampant casual sexual exploitation, largely of the brains you were both born with – sex being a total idiot – nice but stupid. And they can “stick and bucket” some of it’s own rather less than subtle variations on the English language after what I have just said! Or better still perhaps they could have both been guided (had guidance existed) that the devil you know is usually the safer bet so by all means mutually obsess after those you do know. But do leave out the stranger (who some times is you) who masquerades as the familiar friend and hungry for sex. They not necessarily the worst (less they are complete with price list and/or recording equipment, dollars and all) but invariably they aren’t the best of bets either.

GP’s have taken over as the mother figures but not of today’s generation of wannabe “battery-hens” out to pull “Mr right”. Though, more is the pity they are not so in many cases. No, no, they’re only interested the wailing “cop out” among you girls. They are only interested in that mirror image of what in men is regarded (by all incidentally,) as ranking amongst the most degenerate of our species, being the absentee father who won’t pay to keep the kids he has caused to be birthed. However, even should these specimens or any man for that matter come forward to his GP, wailing how he wants to end it all because he doesn’t feel up to the challenge of fatherhood they are told and often directly so – go do that then!

It is access to abortion that is the issue and the problem up for solution. It is not just a question of the stage of development a foetus is at. What is sauce for the goose must become sauce for the gander. No more access to abortion for “cop-out” mothers. And let those caught seeking back street abortion be dealt with as suicidal and potentially homicidal. And further, let the mental health acts be tailored to suit both “cop-out” fathers as well as “cop-out” mothers. It is not merely an issue that you ““cop-out lot” should get treatment – your dammed well having it!

Many of these complex social problems can be resolved very simply.
If a young girl wants to become pregnant without a thought for the welfare of either her child or herself, there is no problem. Her parents can provide with the financial assisstance instead of the taxpayer or conversely the child can be given up for adoption. Why should the tax payer be forced to suffer the consequences of no morals or self restraint. Marriage was developed by civilised society with the guidance of the church for the very act of procreation. A man and a women meet, form a legal and long term loving commitment and then have children. The man goes to work to provide for his family without the need to sponge off others like a parasite. The woman stays at home to provide a loving and stable background in which their children are taught the moral and social infrastructure of society usually with the help of a grandmother or two and the cycle starts over again. In the background the government makes it financially advantageous to a family group to stay together and maintain the system. The church preaches the advantages of such a group enabling its continuance and evereyone is happy.
Have I missed out on something in the last forty years. Oh yes! The government wants to destroy society so that it can control it regardless of social consequence, the church is devoid of morals. The young girls try to get pregant so that they can get free housing and a meal ticket for life.
Stop the financial benefit of having no moral decency, change the "normality" of cohabitation, bring back the financial benefits of being a married couple and restore manners and good upbringing back to society. In other words get rid of the current politicians and find some who are prepared to run a goverment for the benefit of the people who contribute and not for the benefit of the idle, immoral and lazy before society is destoyed forever.

Power to your pen Peter, and may it never run out of ink! There are many of us who completely agree with you. I have young children at school, and each year they have the "Life Education Bus" visiting them. I think at 9 years old they are too young to start learning the facts of life, so we wouldn't allow our daughter to go this time. Presumably these same people will be teaching them all their rights concerning contraception (and shhhh! don't tell your parents) in a couple of years time, assuming that they will all "be at it" when it might not have crossed their minds previously. I just hope that the moral values we are trying to instil into our children stay with them.

Once again, Peter, you have accurately described the behaviour of the British (generally metropolitan) left in seeking to suppress debate.

Dare to disagree with the left and you will not only be warned that you are treading on 'dangerous territory', but you can expect a barrage of the usual verbal vitriol: 'extremist', 'reactionary', 'biggoted', 'homophobic', 'racist', 'Nazi', etc...

In other words, the left cannot engage in dabate because its bankrupt ideas cannot be defended, as is increasingly being shown.

The left has adopted the tactic of focusing on the irrelevant and ignoring the fundamentals. Hence, for example, the wholehearted support of Dave Cameron's Blue Labour for tax relief for child carers, which will do nothing to support stable married family life, and do everything to dissuade mothers from looking after their young (or even consider having children in the first place). Neither will it stop the cost of living from escalating, especially with having to employ expensive child carers (Dave, the taxman will never compensate the costs).

‘Given that all the social evidence shows that children from stable homes with two parents are more likely to do well at school, more likely to do productive work when they grow up, less likely to take to crime than those who come from fractured and fatherless homes …’

This is true – not just by the judgement of one’s own authentic life experience over the last several decades, but as objective truth all these things can be proven, by comparison with other nations, other times etc. As empirical truth, the Data therefore exists on a vast scale and could be gathered together with relatively little effort. One could start, say, with the United States and draw tables demonstrating the growth of various degrees and types of crime per capita in comparison with the societal increase in illegitimacy, drug use, abortion and so forth.

If I had the deliberately perverse worldview of, say, a Satanist, and were to write down on a piece of paper all the things that were most likely to guarantee the rapid Decline and Fall of Western Civilisation, one would have to say that the dominant influences in Politics, the Media, the Church and the Law have been promoting these things relentlessly since the last War anyway. The conclusion I draw from this is that at the highest level, the people at the top of the pyramid, who are quite patently not stupid, are doing this quite deliberately – and then I suppose there is a whole army of egotistical defectives who gain constant promotion and funding in the Media and the Arts, who practice cognitive dissonance on a massive scale to uphold their worldview and so have convinced themselves that it is actively good to portray perverse sex, explicit violence, documentary voyeurism and foul language in Art and Entertainment.

I am no Christian, Theologian, or wise man; I just think that the entire process you have described in the above piece is pure Evil. Where can one can go from there, I would give anything to know.

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear on this weblog until the moderator has approved them. They must not exceed 500 words. Web links cannot be accepted, and may mean your whole comment is not published.